Jump to content

Roe v. Wade - Cases of Rape and Incest?


Luigi

Recommended Posts

Others say: Even if abortion is illegal in most cases, it must remain legal for cases of rape and incest. 

I reply: Exceptions for rape and incest will probably be written into law, for political expediency but also as a 'mercy measure.' The argument of "what about cases of rape and incest" is not a false argument, but rape or incest is nowhere near the most frequent reason for abortion. 

Anyone who is raped should seek immediate medical treatment, which will include some sort of pregnancy prevention methods. Immediate treatment should reduce the number of abortions as a result of rape. 

It isn't always possible to seek immediate medical treatment after rape; it's probably more difficult to seek it in cases of incest. Any fetus resulting from rape is still innocent and ought to retain its legal protections, but I can see where politicians and even courts would come to an opposite conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rape andd incest, not being equivalent to one another, DO NOT pose a valid argument to legalize abortion overall and should be treated as particular cases in which abortion is a means of mercy (as you mentionned) but not that of convenience or a method of contraception, or a mere preference or choice.

These two cases are rare and should be treated apart of the overall question of abortion altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 8:34 PM, Luigi said:

Anyone who is raped should seek immediate medical treatment, which will include some sort of pregnancy prevention methods. Immediate treatment should reduce the number of abortions as a result of rape.

I hope you don't mean the morning after pill or anything similar to that. They're the same as abortions.

 

This is the story of a woman who became pregnant through rape.

 

Rebecca Kiessling was conceived in rape and argues that abortion is never acceptable in cases like hers and incest.

 

She has a website which includes a blog posts where she, others conceived in rape, mothers through rape or incest, and those who aborted after rape share their stories. https://www.savethe1.com/ 

Rebecca is a family lawyer who advocates and attempts to help mothers terminate the parental rights of rapists. It's horrifying that there are places where these women can be legally forced to co-parent with their rapists.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/parental-rights-and-sexual-assault.aspx?fbclid=IwAR32wQvfcVcmdRay3ti0nzOvNxZAH9JzXQsBY0KfYl75xvAklroNJrJd1I

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-alabama--where-lawmakers-banned-abortion-for-rape-victims--rapists-parental-rights-are-protected/2019/06/09/6d2aa5de-831b-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html

 

The solution is The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, which would terminate rapists' parental rights. Rebecca works to get approved throughout the U.S. https://www.savethe1.com/2019/10/02/terminatingparentalrightsofrapists/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a doctor - I don't know all possible procedures, or which ones are used under which conditions. I do know that evidence is collected - that's the legal part of the procedure - but there are also medical treatments. I leave it to the experts to choose appropriate medical treatments. (NB: I'm also not an expert on cancer treatments, or broken bones, or any of the medications advertised on television. I leave all that stuff to the experts, too.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever a pro-choice person brings up abortion for rape and incest, I ask them if they would consent to abortions only for rape and incest? 

They say no. 

I say neither would I (clearly for a different reason). 

 

I then congratulate them on us agreeing with each other and watch them have a meltdown.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Whenever a pro-choice person brings up abortion for rape and incest, I ask them if they would consent to abortions only for rape and incest? 

Reversing the equation... that's a very good tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tinytherese said:

I hope you don't mean the morning after pill or anything similar to that. They're the same as abortions.

 

It's my understanding that, when dealing with rape, under select circumstances the matter is (or at least may be) more nuanced: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/getting-it-right-the-morning-after.html

Edited by Lady Grey, Hot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I know the 2 sides will never meet but for every rape story the pro life side shows, there are many on the other side. The problem is the perceived lack of empathy for both sides. I can't tell a woman who is pregnant by rape, her father, her brother, uncle, etc., many most of us will never hear about, what to feel or do with her body. A pregnant woman isn't hidden, people see her, they assume the pregnancy is wanted and good, they ask questions, they make the awful start, even worse. As one woman said the scars of her body having the pregnancy never go away, the physical toll it took along with the emotional, the fact she can't hide it from a future husband or anyone, having to relive it over and over again. I know a baby is a baby to many, but a baby by your father or a psychopath is not "sanctioned" from God. I can't imagine someone not having empathy toward a woman who was forced into sex and then forced to have what probably will be a traumatic pregnancy. For every person who did it, there will be some who emotionally would have had a breakdown and you can't minimize it.

I don't know the answers but I see abortion lessening over the years but in many places having exceptions. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but this isn't "selective" abortions or "I made a mistake", it's a crime and I can't tell a woman or child traumatized already, what is right for her. It is the worst part of our culture, but I feel minimized by prolife and words don't help.

Our church minimized babies born early and stillborn. It's shameful how they said to be prolife but had archaic rules of burial and acknowledging these babies if a breath wasn't known at birth. Like God would care. If he wanted them trashed, if he wanted the stillborn left at the hospital, then why make abortion seem awful. You respect life at every stage, but the church didn't for many centuries. Mass graves of babies treated the same way as abortions. I remember the head of a prolife group saying the church has made errors but correcting them now but still not everywhere.  I am glad many moms are getting the respect they deserve when they lose child at any stage but it's sad. Even a TV show, popular with many, This is Us showed the family leaving their stillborn son at the hospital because that is what many did. I never could have, if I had to do the burial myself. Such disregard to life, which is the excuse I heard for many not being prolife when younger. Hypocritical.

Let's pray things get better and communication is better for all of us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/30/2022 at 4:33 PM, Credo in Deum said:

I say neither would I (clearly for a different reason). 

I honestly don't understand this position.  It's clear that they got us to our current status by means of little changes upon little changes upon little changes.  

"We're not looking for recognition of same-sex marriage" - yeah, right.  Now not only are you bigoted if you disagree with same-sex marriage, but you are bigoted if you don't celebrate it, and it's going even further than that.

But some bishops and many traditional groups won't support a bill or law that prevents some abortions, because it's not preventing all of them.  I just don't get that.  Why isn't any move or change to prohibit any abortions seen as a victory for Catholics?  

Now, I can understand if the law is worded in such a way that it prevents further good changes in the future.  And certainly the way you worded the statement leans that direction...  But I would absolutely support a law that prohibits abortions, even if it stipulates that there are exceptions of rape and incest.    That doesn't mean I'm supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest, it means that it's a step in the right direction.

I don't know - maybe you can point me to something that could change my mind on the matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

I'm not saying it's right or wrong

You don't need to, the Church does that.  You just need to agree with what the Church says.

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

but this isn't "selective" abortions or "I made a mistake", it's a crime and I can't tell a woman or child traumatized already, what is right for her.

The Church does that, and rightfully so.

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

I feel minimized by prolife and words don't help.

See below...

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

It's shameful how they said to be prolife but had archaic rules of burial and acknowledging these babies if a breath wasn't known at birth.

What specifically are you talking about?

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

Like God would care.

God cares about every aspect of every particle and every person and every choice in existence.  There is nothing that is or was or was ever thought of that God doesn't care about.  What do you mean?  Care about what, specifically?

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

You respect life at every stage, but the church didn't for many centuries.

This claim is false and absurd.  The Church has always respected life at every state, and for many centuries the Church was the only group in many areas that respected life at every stage.

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

Mass graves of babies treated the same way as abortions.

This was never done by the Church.  Are you just talking about Baptism?

On 6/13/2022 at 5:17 AM, debc said:

Let's pray things get better and communication is better for all of us.

Agreed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have all my bookmarks anymore, but my point was the horrible "you can't bury your baby" near other consecrated graves was abolished and the leaving stillborns or miscarriages at hospital has lessened or disappeared in the US. Many women told me growing up, "no breath, no funeral". Who in the world would believe God meant for innocent children to get separate place? Seriously, if a human being ever took literally that Jesus, our Father, Mary, would ever reject an innocent baby who didn't get baptized on semantics, it boggles my mind. Some priests balked at it then and some articles said their priest told them their baby could be buried. Mass graves with little respect were found in other countries and Cardinal Dolan was saying recently, we owe them an apology. Mass graves with stillborns are being given respect now in UK and other countries. It warms my heart to see many parents looking for children now, making them mark their graves or try to find them.

Even with the new rules, some priests still think it's not done and many Catholics not well read, still pass on the "no breath, no consecrated ground" misinformation.

Sadly this happened in India last year:

In February 21, the grief-stricken relatives of a stillborn child contacted the priest in charge of a parish under Baruipur diocese and requested him to conduct the funeral rites a stillborn child.

They were shocked when the priest declined, saying he would neither bless the child nor conduct the funeral rites, as the child was not baptized.In spite of repeated requests from the grieving family, the priest remained adamant. The aggrieved family contacted some priests in Kolkata who told them that as a general principle, the church encourages funeral rites for unbaptized infants and stillborn babies.

The parish priest relented only after his vicar general instructed him to bless the child. The burial had to be conducted by the child’s family members on February 22.The moot point here is the said parish priest was more insistent on dogma than his primary duty to show pastoral concern for the bereaved family. He should have known that The Code of Canon Law, revised in 1983, broadens the privilege of Christian burial and restricts further instances of its denial (an extreme penalty levied upon those who committed intolerable acts against the Church) in response to several significant legal-pastoral developments since the 1917 Code. He should also read Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261 to deepen his understanding of pastoral duties.

I am happy the church has evolved to have a very unhappy time, less traumatic but many people still get their education from parents and grandparents who still believe things are the same as the 1960's. When women were encouraged not to see or touch or bury their children, it lessened their worth in a way to others. When a popular TV show (fiction of course) showed a mom of triplets not bring one home, no burial, no memorial, etc., it caused a lot of talk on social media and grief abounded from moms who had parents or sisters etc go through the same. I was surprised how many still felt the lack of support in clergy and staff.

I know it's hard to educate, but with social media, have articles on funerals, how long thought ideas are not valid and it will help. I still see so many heartbreaking stories in posts saying, "Now my baby is valid?" This article from Ireland shows the pain it caused many parents.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/they-buried-our-baby-for-5-and-nothing-more-was-said-1.561034

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I've never heard "no breath, no funeral" from the Church, although I can believe that was accepted lore in various places in the past. But that idea may not have originated in the Church - it may have been borrowed in, or at least integrated with, existing medical knowledge (science, such as it was at the time). 

I did know a woman who died in childbirth. Her baby had already died in the womb. When they induced labor, the mother had an amniotic embolism. The medical personnel issued a death certificate for the mother but not for the baby, reasoning that "the baby had never been born; therefore, no birth certificate can be issued; therefore, no death certificate is needed." The baby was to be buried in the same casket as the mother, turned sideways at the mother's feet. The funeral director told the family, "I have two corpses, so I need two death certificates." I don't know whether a death certificate was ever issued for the baby, but she was buried with her mother. 

The point here is that even medical experts and professionals in the field don't always agree on when birth occurred, or what to do with human remains. In this example, the Church stayed out of the discussion - the pastor was very sensitive to the family's wishes that the child be buried with the mother; it was the non-religious folks who were arguing about birth, bodies, and death. 

The Church has always tried to synthesize its theology with science, and the law, and tradition, and human experience. Sometimes the process of synthesis takes a while, and people aren't very patient, especially in the 21st-century United States. When the Church does come to a conclusion, it's usually right, but it does take a while.

As I understand it, the Church's position on cremation and on the burial of (and funeral rites for) people who have committed suicide has also evolved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their view on suicide which was very wrong and lacking in empathy and understanding of what causes it, made Catholics leave the faith too. I met a woman who had her husband commit suicide and said the church did nothing for her, nothing. I'm not sure where he was buried but she never went back and nothing at this point could take away her pain and added trauma at 65 years old. (this happened in her 20's).  Another mom of my friend had them say it was an accident, when her son seemed to die by suicide, but if someone is filled with that much despair, mental illness, drugs, etc. why should they be shunned by our church? Why should a woman, a past coworker who is now deceased, who had a horrible alcoholic husband, be told "she made her bed" instead of trying to help her get out of marriage. She did leave him but never divorced but it was very hard with a special needs child. One priest or two or even three, doesn't mean all would have said that, but each one forms memories and repercussions that rippel over the years.

I know the breath rule was used for not baptizing  but they could have had a blessing. I don't think they should have been denied being buried in consecrated ground. In all do respect, what brains thought a perfect God would care if a child he loved was baptized or not when it couldn't be in any way, with the rules of the time. Why did they believe he would have a place separate because of that. I was an uneducated child and knew that couldn't be the God I was taught about. That was an overthought human response with error but it has been corrected.  Women today except for some pockets, wont have to feel that pain. They know they will see their child again. It wont be buried a mile away or outside a fence or as one priest said "use your garden". Pope Benedict happily put it to rest for good.

My point was as I was discussing with someone who was head of prolife group years ago, you will never get people to think the womb is sacred when a baby dying in it is left at the hospital many times or told it can't be put in consecrated ground. Now things will be different, for years it has been, but sadly still crops up in other Catholic countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 2:35 PM, debc said:

The moot point here is the said parish priest was more insistent on dogma than his primary duty to show pastoral concern for the bereaved family.

His primary duty is decidedly NOT to show pastoral concern, but to preach the Gospel, as was proved in another thread.  His secondary duty is to provide sacraments to the faithful based on the rules and teachings of the Church.  His last duty would be to show pastoral concern, and only when it doesn't conflict with his more important duties.

So - yes, your issue is with Baptism, which you seem to care little about.  I assure you, God cares about Baptism very much.

1 hour ago, debc said:

In all do respect, what brains thought a perfect God would care if a child he loved was baptized or not when it couldn't be in any way, with the rules of the time.

With all due respect, that would be God's own brains, in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ Himself, Who said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

Our ways are not God's ways.  You are free to believe that God would have mercy and would show compassion to those who die without baptism, and would allow them entrance into Heaven, but don't judge a priest who insists on dogma based on your own understanding of morality. Certainly, God does care whether or not the child is baptized.  God loves every person in Hell, too; He still allows them to go there.

1 hour ago, debc said:

Pope Benedict happily put it to rest for good.

This is a false statement.  Pope Benedict XVI didn't change anything in this regard.  Nor can he change any facet of faith or morals.  

1 hour ago, debc said:

My point was as I was discussing with someone who was head of prolife group years ago, you will never get people to think the womb is sacred when a baby dying in it is left at the hospital many times or told it can't be put in consecrated ground.

On the contrary, the rules that are now mostly forgotten served to increase, not decrease, the understanding of the sacredness of life.  It is precisely because we care so little about the rules now that most Catholics support anti-life ideas like contraception, and why Roe v Wade lasted as long as it did (praise God for today's decision!), and why we now have the pride nonsense and BLM riots and trans satanism.  

If we cared as much as God does, we would not so callously and imprudently dismiss the rules of a prior age based on our own postmodern ideas of what is good or bad.  We are more lost than ever before, and if we pride ourselves on our current sensitivities, we let those same sensitivities lead us to Hell.

Edited by fides' Jack
grammar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings are not low on Baptism, my point is Jesus being a perfect God would never hold it against an innocent baby what he/she couldn't get. It was silly to think he had to explain that. You aren't elevating a sacrament by saying a baby in the womb or just born can't get it so "less than" another.God is perfect, he doesn't have loopholes or tricks and as a priest said recently, isn't bound by any misunderstanding a human being made in their own limited knowledge. I'm sorry for the hurt the church inflicted on many in being so cold years ago and not understanding. No disrespect but the church is wonderful but has done things that they are sorry for now and Cardinals and Bishops will say when asked, apologies and trying to remedy what was done (as with some mass graves recently) is a start.

I don't fault those who blindly thought certain things were good but some of the rules seemed obvious they were wrong. I don't feel guilty feeling that way years ago and then seeing changes overall in sensitivity to women, abuse, divorce, suicide,miscarriage and so many things. It can only bring people in, never keep them away.

Edited by debc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...